Burocrazia vs. post-burocrazia: gestire il paradosso nella pubblica amministrazione italiana

Titolo Rivista SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO
Autori/Curatori Marta Ingaggiati
Anno di pubblicazione 2025 Fascicolo 2025/172
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 23 P. 50-72 Dimensione file 219 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2025-172003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Nel corso della storia della Pubblica Amministrazione (PA), i modelli burocratici e post-burocratici hanno spesso convissuto, alternandosi in relazioni instabili di predominanza. La presenza simultanea di elementi appartenenti a entrambi i modelli ha dato origine, nel tempo, a un paradosso tra burocrazia e post-burocrazia. Sebbene negli studi sulla PA vi sia un crescente interesse per la prospettiva paradossale, il suo sviluppo nel tempo e nel contesto italiano rimane ancora poco approfondito. Per colmare questa lacuna, il presente articolo analizza come la PA abbia gestito il paradosso tra burocrazia e post-burocrazia negli ultimi trent'anni, adottando una prospettiva storica incentrata sul corso-concorso della Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione. Il contributo teorico di questo studio consiste nell’evidenziare le variazioni nel tempo della rilevanza dei due poli del paradosso. Inoltre, si osserva come tale rilevanza differisca tra diversi ambiti organizzativi, influenzando le strategie adottate per affrontare il paradosso stesso. Infine, l’articolo propone implicazioni pratiche per un ampio spettro di professionisti, tra cui manager, policymaker e formatori.

Parole chiave:paradosso; pubblica amministrazione; burocrazia; post-burocrazia

  1. Hyndman N., Liguori M., Meyer R. E. Polzer, T. Rota, S. e Seiwald J. (2014). The translation and sedimentation of accounting reforms. A comparison of the UK, Austrian and Italian experiences. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4–5): 388-408.
  2. Jun J. S. e Rivera M. A. (1997). The paradox of transforming public administration: Modernity versus postmodernity arguments. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(1): 132-147.. DOI: 10.1177/000276429704100101
  3. Kickert W. (2007). Public management reforms in countries with a napoleonic state model: France, Italy and Spain. In: Pollitt C., Van Thiel S. e Homburg V., a cura di, New Public Management in Europe: Adaptation and Alternatives, London: Palgrave Macmillan.. DOI: 10.1057/978023062536
  4. Kipping M., Üsdiken B. (2014). History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 535–588. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2014.91157
  5. Kipping M., Wadhwani R. D. e Bucheli M. (2014). Analyzing and Interpreting Historical Sources: A Basic Methodology. In: Bucheli M. e Wadhwani R.D., a cura di, Organizations in Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Lewis M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760-776. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2000.370771
  7. March J. G., Simon H. A. (1993). Organizations. NY: Wiley, New York.
  8. Martin S. (2010). From New Public Management to Networked Community Governance? Strategic Local Public Service Networks in England. In: Osborne S., a cura di, The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203861684-2
  9. Masuch M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1): 14-33. DOI: 10.2307/239280
  10. Mele V., Ongaro E. (2014). Public Sector Reform in a Context of Political Instability: Italy 1992-2007. International Public Management Journal, 17(1): 111-142. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.84916
  11. Merton R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Free press.
  12. Monteiro P., Adler P. S. (2022). Bureaucracy for the 21th Century: Clarifying and Expanding Our View of Bureaucratic Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 16(2): 427-475.
  13. Murdoch Z., MacCarthaigh M. e Geys B. (2023). It’s about time! Temporal dynamics and longitudinal research designs in public administration. Public Administration Review, 83(6): 1727–1736.
  14. Natalini A., Stolfi F. (2012). Mechanisms and public administration reform: Italian cases of better regulation and digitalization. Public Administration, 90(2): 529-543.
  15. Nielsen M. H., Andersen N. A. (2024). Ignoring by complying: How public officials handle hybridity to pursue the goals of new public governance. Public Administration, 102(4): 1382-1396.
  16. Norman R., Gregory R. (2003). Paradoxes and Pendulum Swings: Performance Management in New Zealand’s Public Sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(4): 35-49.
  17. Ongaro E. (2009). Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/978184980228
  18. Ongaro E. (2011). The role of politics and institutions in the Italian administrative reform trajectory. Public Administration, 89(3): 738-755.
  19. Ongaro E., Di Mascio F., Melis G. e Natalini A. (2023). Reforming public administration in Italy: continuity and change from 1861 to 2020. In: Goldfinch S. F., a cura di, Handbook of Public Administration Reform Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  20. Osborne S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3): 377–387.
  21. Pollitt C. (2016). Managerialism Redux? Financial Accountability and Management, 32(4): 429-447.
  22. Pollitt C., Bouckaert G. (2017). Public management reform: A Comparative Analysis—New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford university press.
  23. Putnam L. L., Fairhurst G. T. e Banghart S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach†. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 65-171. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.116242
  24. Qi H., Ran B. (2023). Paradoxes in collaborative governance. Public Management Review, 26(10): 2728–2753. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2023.219629
  25. Schad J., Lewis M. W., Raisch S. e Smith W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5-64. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.116242
  26. Smith E., Umans T. (2015). Organizational Ambidexterity at the Local Government Level: The effects of managerial focus. Public Management Review, 17(6): 812–833. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2013.84929
  27. Torfing J., Andersen L. B., Greve C. e Klausen K. K. (2020). Public Governance Paradigms: Competing and Co-Existing Policy, Administrative and Institutional Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/978178897122
  28. Wadhwani R. D., Suddaby R., Mordhorst M. e Popp A. (2018). History as Organizing: Uses of the Past in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 39(12): 1663-1683. DOI: 10.1177/017084061881486
  29. Weber M. (1958). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  30. Adeoye O., Ran B. (2023). Government transparency: paradoxes and dilemmas. Public Management Review, 26(8): 2194–2217. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2023.218198
  31. Backhaus L., Reuber A., Vogel D. e Vogel R. (2022). Giving sense about paradoxes: paradoxical leadership in the public sector. Public Management Review, 24(9): 1478–1498. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2021.190693
  32. Barbato G., Ingaggiati M., Ruffini R. e Turri M. (2022). L’accesso pubblico nel PNRR: analisi delle problematiche dei concorsi pubblici e possibili linee di sviluppo future. Azienda Pubblica, 3: 213–228.
  33. Bryson J. M., Crosby B. C. e Bloomberg L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4): 445-456.
  34. Byrkjeflot H., Du Gay P. e Greve C. (2017). What is the ‘Neo-weberian state’ as a regime of public administration? In: Ongaro E. e Van Thiel S. (a cura di) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan London. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_5
  35. Capano G. (2003). Administrative traditions and policy change: When policy paradigms matter. The case of Italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration, 81(4): 781-801.
  36. Christensen J. (2024). When bureaucratic expertise comes under attack. Public Administration, 102(1): 79-94.
  37. Christensen T., Lægreid P. (2022). Taking stock: New public management (NPM) and post-NPM reforms-trends and challenges. In: Ladner A. e Sager S., a cura di, Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781839109447.0001
  38. Crozier M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  39. Diefenbach T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic “enlightenment.” Public Administration, 87(4): 892-909.
  40. Di Mascio F., Natalini A. (2024). Le teorie del cambiamento amministrativo tra paradigmi e modelli. Il caso delle riforme amministrative in Italia. Rivista Trimestrale di Scienza dell’amministrazione, (1): 1-27. DOI: 10.32049/RTSA.2024.1.0
  41. Di Mascio F., Natalini A. e Stolfi F. (2013). The ghost of crises past: Analyzing reform sequences to understand Italy’s response to the global crisis. Public Administration, 91(1): 17-31.
  42. Dunleavy P., Margetts H., Bastow S. e Tinkler J. (2006). New public management is dead - Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3): 467–494.
  43. Farrell C., Hatcher W. e Diamond J. (2022). Reflecting on over 100 years of public administration education. Public Administration, 100(1): 116–128.
  44. George B., Pandey S. K. Steijn B., Decramer A. e Audenaert M. (2021). Red Tape, Organizational Performance, and Employee Outcomes: Meta-analysis, Meta-regression, and Research Agenda. Public Administration Review, 81(4): 638-651.
  45. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
  46. Hargrave T. J., Van de Ven A. H. (2017). Integrating Dialectical and Paradox Perspectives on Managing Contradictions in Organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 319–339. DOI: 10.1177/017084061664084
  47. Hood C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1): 3-19.
  48. Hood C., Peters G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3): 267–282.

Marta Ingaggiati, Burocrazia vs. post-burocrazia: gestire il paradosso nella pubblica amministrazione italiana in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 172/2025, pp 50-72, DOI: 10.3280/SL2025-172003